Real Cost of Shrub’s Mission to Mars

[seasat]

The NASA EOS program has proven to be wildly successful. We’ve progressed in leaps and bounds with environmental monitoring that allows coverage of large areas at the same time. Monitoring on land or sea by taking samples only provides a snapshot of one tiny area at one point in time. Satellites such as Sea WIFS and MODIS have allowed us to estimate such parameters like the amount of primary production in the global ocean. One of the goals of the EOS program is quantification of the sources and sinks in the global carbon cycle. This will allow us to better estimate the effects and extent of global warming.

This quote in the article on Shrub’s hunt for little green men worried me.

From Article:

To pay for it, Bush proposed a five-year, $1 billion increase in NASA's budget, which is now about $15 billion.
Another $11 billion over five years would be reallocated from elsewhere in NASA's budget.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Shrub gets to cut environmental studies that might indicate problems with his neo-luddite views on the greenhouse gas theory of global warming. We will have less money to monitor deforestation, sea level rise, or other forms of environmental degradation. Expect programs like EOS to be cut to pay for his vision! I admit am biased because I work ground-truthing environmental satellite data. However, I feel that it is a necessary program if we want to preserve this planet for our children. I don’t oppose a mission to Mars, but feel that it should be done using new money and not robbing existing programs or by increasing the US debt. It seems awfully convenient that Bush is promoting cutting these programs as evidence for the greenhouse theory of global warming increases.

[Demonaut]

1. Bush is truly the AntiChrist

or something very close

[Kolesar]

2. On some mornings, I just want to tear my hair out.

Bush is truly evil.

[PATRICK]

3. The public debate and our benighted Congress

Obviously no one pays attention to the absolute consistency among the "crazies" regarding space programs. Arguing the cost of a noble pioneering quest is an old tried and true path we are wearily trodding again. It's not just about the cost of Mars. Shrub and Cheney could care less if their "No Astronaut Left Behind" program goes on or not. That is the far future.

What it does is release and reorganize all space funds into clever way that immediately benefit SDI. They have been talking about space. They went public about blowing away all rivals' spy satellites, enthused like Buck Rogers fans about future "wars in space". That is how they dream, not the scientists or the sane.

Mars without international cooperation? Bye bye international space station, as questionable as it was, although what exactly will be the transfer platform to relay all our junk even to the moon? New fleet of manned spacecraft? Hoohah, and those will be rushed if the "schedule for Mars" is to be kept.

And of course big bucks for Bush states and Arnold mainly, as the missiles secretly go up to defend the Empire. Always, always always
the NASA program has been funded and prioritized for the Pentagon and pork however much the value of their public science achievements is infinitely more worthwhile. That hasn't changed and neither has Bush.

Watch the money and watch SDI piggyback and supplant Mars. Why are even the savviest and most experienced always distracted by the chatter and the sleight of hand? We do know better, really.

And yes, they intend to be in control twenty years from now, but you won't care very much about Mars by then.

[Stilgar]

4. It's about time something was done

We should have someone on Mars now and would have if JFK was not killed.

As for SDI going in with NASA, though I am not a fan of SDI, anything that gives NASA more funding for research is good. It is also intresting that the reason to go to the moon the first time was to speed up our research on ICBM's. Nothing has ever driven technology like the space race. China is our new opponent. To gripe about Bush for giving NASA much needed money, and giving NASA the responsability of developing Pentagon weapons means that any research that is paid for by war money can then be put to use for scientific studies instead of all research being classified with military contractors.

NASA has been underfunded for far too long. NASA gives us inspiration and innovation when put to a worthy task. We need new shuttles that can make trips every other day. Multiple varied missions instead of just supplies to the ISS.

To fund it we should just drop the No Child Left Behind, since that will never work.

As for dropping the funds for monitoring global changes, give the resources to another agency. NASA should study Aeronautics and space, not to keep track of ice caps. I am not saying stop, just give it to others and get back to the core mission and hopefully that is what Bush is doing.

Just like he should make the CDC get back to hunting cures instead of funding research into the success or failure of gun laws.

"The moon also has "abundant resources" that could be exploited for potential uses such as rocket fuel, added Bush, a former oilman."
This statement is correct, except I dont understand why put "a former oilman" at the end. There are no oil deposits on the moon, you need dead things to make oil. Rocket fuel is liquid oxygen and liquid Hydrogen, you know components of water. We can use ice to get water for living and use as fuel instead of launching all the fuel and water needed from earth. And how can you be a "former" oilman when the oil and gas companies still pay you, I think they call them donations.

[Kolesar]

5. "China is our new opponent"--Speak for yourself, please

I don't need any opponents assigned to me.

Besides, I understand that Earth monitoring was deleted & defunded by the planet destroyers* early in their administration.

*Bush and Cheney